Title: / Territorial evidence for policy-making – Highlights of ESPON results
Abstract
Competitive Regions in Europe – Cliff Hague
Aspects of regional competitiveness were explored in a number of ESPON projects. Consideration was given to underpinning theories and to the EU’s approaches to regional competitiveness. For example a project looking at the territorial aspects of the Lisbon-Gothenburg process reviewed the 2003 Competitiveness Report and also looked at Porter’s “diamond” and integrated it with aspects of European regional policy making. Similarly,the literature on innovation was reviewed in a project on the territorial impacts of R&D policy.
Given the limited time, the presentation will concentrate on the more empirical aspects of ESPON work on regional competitiveness. ESPON has collected, analysed, synthesised and mapped many indicators of regional competitiveness down to NUTS 3 level across its 29 member countries. The presentation will begin by focussing on a map that looks at increases in GDP per capita (In PPS). It shows that the highest growth rates over this period (over 8% a year) were in regions in Ireland and the Baltic States, with strong performances also in other countries which in the period covered were not yet members of the EU. However the map also show s that significant regional disparities exist across the borders between new and old EU member states and between capital city regions and adjoining regions in many countries.
Long term unemployment is another indicator of competitiveness. Here the picture largely reflects national labour markets, with Ireland, UK, Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries appearing strongest. In half of the NUTS 2 regions in the ESPON space, the long term unemployed accounted for 40% or more of the jobless.
By combining a number of different indicators ESPON has been able to map European clusters of innovation and competitiveness. Using this data the most competitive regions appear to be found in the south-east of England, south-west Norway, the Gothenburg-Stockholm corridor, and Switzerland. Amongst the regions identified as being less competitive are the south-west of the Iberian peninsula, and more peripheral regions of Greece and the newer members of the Union.
An Information Society index has been developed and mapped. It is built from data on readiness for, availability of and impacts from information technology systems. As with many indicators the picture is quite complex; there are national “ITC cultures” that exhibit some degree of regional variation. However the broad patternthat emerges is that on this indicator of regional competitiveness, there are North-South, West-East and urban-rural divides.
2002 data from the European Patent Office has also been analysed and mapped. This reveals that the highest proportion of patent applications came from the best performance on other indicators of competitiveness as developed through the Lisbon process. More than 50% of the patent applications that year came from just 24 NUTS2 regions. However, this data also reveals that there are some rural regions that appear to have performed well on this measure of innovation. The north of Finland, the north of Sweden and the West of Ireland come into this category.
Overall, though, it becomes clear that it is the capital cities and the major urban agglomerations that drive Europe’s regional competitiveness. Analysis of the headquarters location of major European companies highlights the leading roles of the regions based on London and Paris, though the Randstad is not far behind. Munich is one of the few non-capital cities with several major company headquarters.
The core and the north of Europe lead in many aspects related to competitiveness. However, across the continent the main urban centres are strong hubs for regional growth and jobs, though this is less true for urban agglomerations that are still adapting to industrial change and restructuring. Employment in cultural and creative e industries tends to be concentrated in the cities, which are the places that also benefit first from the roll-out of new telecommunications technologies. The dispersal of major universities across the ESPON space is a factor in creating opportunities for polycentric regional growth at a European scale.
Nevertheless, the important role of small and medium-sized towns in regional development should not be neglected. Some 72% of Europe’s citizens live in settlements that have populations of less than 100,000. Such centres can offer a high quality of life that attracts and retains high skill labour, provided they are accessible, as most of them are, to larger urban areas. Such towns and cities are also critical to the regional competitiveness of rural areas as we move to a post-productivist countryside.
In summary, ESPON’s work on regional competitiveness has looked in some detail (down to NUTS3 level) across 29 countries and at many different indicators, though often time series data has been limited and some variables relate to periods before the 2004 and 2007 growth of the Union. What emerges is a picture that is more complex than a traditional core/periphery divide in competitiveness, though that pattern can still be discerned on some factors. There are strong growth poles both inside and outside the core.
Last but not least ESPON has highlighted the importance of territorial governance as a force for increasing regional competitiveness. Furthermore the potential contribution of culture and the natural environment to territorial capital should be recognised. However, in seeking to promote convergence and cohesion between European regions, we also need to remember that competitiveness is ultimately a concern that is shaped globally. The competitive position of Europe’s regions should be viewed both in relation to Neighbourhood countries and to the wider international economy.